Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: craven714 Date: Apr 14, 2014 10:39am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: TDIH 82 ~ little chuckle time

https://archive.org/details/gd82-04-14.sbd.braverman.7629.sbeok.shnf

Deep Elementary Blues. ? that's a new one on me.

(put your milk money in your shoes?)
HA! So far, so good; For an 82...
pretty good reviews from people I respect around here.
And they aint wrong

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billydlions Date: Apr 14, 2014 3:50pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: TDIH 82 ~ little chuckle time

I discovered the archive back in 2004 and they were uploading 1982 shows at that time. I can't really say I feel the same way today that I did when I reviewed this show (10 years ago!) as I had such limited Dead knowledge compared to what I know today. Anyway, thanks to the knuckle heads around here I've had my eyes opened to a lot of stuff that I never appreciated. I still think this show is great but I would probably change my rating to 4 stars- electric Deep Elems are great (check out 3-9-81 for an equal).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ducats Date: Apr 16, 2014 4:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: TDIH 82 ~ little chuckle time

its the "late to a rock n roll show" show (i think anyway) and it smokes imo. the deep elem rocks

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 14, 2014 10:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: a proposed new SDH-friendly rating system

Boy, Bobby is in a mood ... I think he may have written that name.

Fun show so far, kinda sloppy IMO but lots of good energy and sweet playing. But what a perfect example of the oddness of reviews: People comment on the band seeming tired but then give 5 stars for, as they say, sloppy Jerry but "spectacular effort" ... or "solely for PITB" ... and because all Dead shows should always get 5 stars for "courage and integrity." Oh THAT'S helpful.

Seems like people mainly give low ratings when they remember not liking it at the time, but otherwise are really loath to give anything under 4 stars. Presumably because they think the Dead are REALLY GOOD. (Uh, of course they do, or they wouldn't be here.) Even '86 and '95 mainly get 4 and 4-and-a-half stars, which I guess means "not quite as good" in Reviewspeak.

Not exactly a new observation, but the reviews really struck me.

Maybe it should be like a Richter scale and have more variability in the upper ranges, where each incremental point represents a huge increase in impact, since the upper ranges are kind of all that counts anyway.

Below 5: You might feel it, but you can largely go about your business
5-5.9: Moderate shaking, but can't miss it; some destruction possible
6-6.9: Strong
7-7.9: Great
8-8.9: Major
9.0-10: Total Devastation

(Living in a super-high-risk earthquake zone, this is not meant to be glib about earthquakes ... gotta add that ... but it occurred to me that a scale that recognizes no one is ever going to give a bad mark would be useful ... not that it'll change, just saying.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Apr 15, 2014 6:00am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: a proposed new SDH-friendly rating system

I have to say that this is a fine system you've come up with and one I would fully support.

I also agree that the rating system we have is flawed, but I truly believe that no matter how you tweaked it, you'd never please everyone. How one person sees a show can be so different from someone else that rating it should really be for personal use only. Yes, there are a few regular reviewers that I usually agree with, but not always. When I rate a show I tend to go with the more emotional reaction, less so the more technical aspects, i.e. was Jerry's voice too ragged, was Keith's playing too flat, were Donna's contributions a violation of just about every ASPCA standard? Nah, I look at a show and will ask myself how many moments were there that shook my inner being; the more moments there were like that and how long those moments lasted the more likely it is that I'll give a show more stars. Also, we have the differences in what prompts someone to take the time to write a review. For me, it is almost always only when a show has stood out and I feel should be at least be sampled by others. If I come across a show that leaves me flat from start to finish, I rarely will take the time to give it a review. Others however don't seem to have that issue, freely taking the time to bash shows as soon as praise them. For me there a few regular reviewers whose taste I have come to see as being fairly close to my own and if I see a show that they have rated particularly highly, there's a good chance I'll take the time to give it a listen.

Also, I guess I should also point out that this may be the very first time the phrase "SDH-friendly" has been used. I guess I should now get ready for the potential listings of other things that can be rated as "SDH-friendly"...the first person who says "randy livestock" is off my Christmas list.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: craven714 Date: Apr 15, 2014 10:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: a proposed new SDH-friendly rating system

My review of your review is 3 stars~

just for the words, 'tweaked, violation and shook my inner being'
I read those all as one sentence. The review of my review?
1 star...

There is no denying that this 82 PITB fuckin rocks though
(and the drumz). And btw~
randy livestock

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 15, 2014 6:53pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: a proposed new SDH-friendly rating system

Yes, the PITB is great -- and I think I'm hearing the Raven space of a few days later getting birthed there. That whole second set is quite good, IMO, except for the vocals which are in the "don't play these for non-Deadheads" category.

In the Cool Moment department: As the drumz played, a Hindu priest started chanting at the house next door, so the drums made an amazing backdrop. Play them the next time you have a priest around to chant.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Apr 15, 2014 11:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: a proposed new SDH-friendly rating system

Welcome to the slippery slope.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: craven714 Date: Apr 15, 2014 12:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: a proposed new SDH-friendly rating system

I just Googled Slippery Slope.
ummmmm, yeah... don't. do. it. "point taken" doesn't even touch the things that I just watched.
Although, I am tempted to Google 'randy livestock' now...
EDIT~ THERE'S DIRE! shoulda known

This post was modified by craven714 on 2014-04-15 19:47:19

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Apr 15, 2014 12:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: a proposed new SDH-friendly rating system

Warning: Don't try that at work. Apparently pulling up bestiality sites is grounds for termination. Some folks are way too touchy.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: craven714 Date: Apr 15, 2014 12:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: a proposed new SDH-friendly rating system

Oh don't worry about that. My boss only lets me watch artificial insemination bestiality videos. Look, theres DIRE again.

And the only folk that I know who was way too touchy was
my uncle. He Taught me all I know. Taught me so well,
that I left his dead ass there by the side of the road.
(dead related upon major hijack, thankyouverymuch)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Apr 15, 2014 8:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: a proposed new SDH-friendly rating system

Reluctant sheeple?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Apr 15, 2014 8:32am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: a proposed new SDH-friendly rating system

That's it. You're off one list...and onto another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnpkDWbeJs


Ahh, yet another hijack that is sure to get those whose panties are easily bunched all wound up.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: stratocaster Date: Apr 15, 2014 4:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: a proposed new SDH-friendly rating system

I've been in favor of an expanded rating system forever...in general, my hope is that people rate shows relative to the year or era, not against their entire career...but this is obviously not the case

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: craven714 Date: Apr 17, 2014 8:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: a proposed new SDH-friendly rating system

This wasn't supposed to be a review rant. I just wanted
the peeps to give that 82 some love. How anyone "could rate" a show is nonsense to me. I do admire CLIFFs system,
but none are necessary as long as you listen imo...